How is it, the same people who decry and condemn big business, and corporate America, and huge CEO salaries as being unfair, greedy, monopolistic, and evil are the same people who become protectionists when it comes to the public school system, and the funding of public schools?

We rejected the formation of business monopolies in the late 1800’s, and we rejected the collusion they had engaged in to fix prices, making it virtually impossible for smaller businesses to compete. For better or worse, the Sherman Antitrust Act was passed to break up these monopolies and ensure that the smaller businesses would be able to compete alongside their more larger counterparts in a fairer, freer marketplace.

What does this have to do with public schools?

The public school system has itself become a monopoly, much in the same sense as the corporations of old; and with the creation of the Department of Education, under the Carter Administration, the federal government controls a vast percentage of the whole, and has the power, and political influence, to dictate policy, and the terms and conditions of how the most local of public school may be operated. The collusion, in this case, is performed not by slick businessmen in back rooms, but rather slick lawmakers in back rooms.

And in this analogy, the small businesses are the poor and middle class American families who are finding it next to impossible to compete with the public school system for a decent, quality education that is so easily, so readily available to the children of more well to do parents with the financial means to send them to any institution of their choosing.

Isn’t it time parents had their own version of a Sherman Antitrust Act? Isn’t time parents had real choice in education? Isn’t it time the public school system in America was confronted and challenged with real competition?

School vouchers are the equivalence of the Sherman Antitrust Act; they are a mechanism and a means, in the form of money, which gives parents real choice, real opportunity, and real control over there children’s education, and in particular - where their children will receive that education.

What’s wrong with that?

A school voucher can only be used for the purpose of helping pay for schooling. Other than that, it would be left to the discretion of each individual family who receives a voucher as to its actual use. Whether it will be put toward public or private, or even home schooling and parochial education, the purpose of vouchers is to make it easier, financially, for parents who feel their children are not receiving a quality education within the public school system - and there are many varying factors why that might be - to pull their children from these schools and place them in an alternative educational facility. This drastic measure is not done on a whim, but researched ad nauseam to find the right school worth the monetary investment. And why would any parent go to these lengths at all unless they have found something, somewhere within the school their children are attending that is harming their education?

The Department of Education, the Teachers Union, the Democrats all be damned!

Our children’s education is worth standing up and fighting for. Vouchers will infuse real competition in the education marketplace, and instill real fear in the hierarchy that controls the public school system, from the federal government on down to local administrations, who refuse - out of pompousness, to listen to our concerns. Whether vouchers make them listen or not, is irrelevant. Their real impact will be in securing a more competitive education for our children, and better equipping them for a future in which they will have a greater edge than their publicly schooled counterparts. And in the final analysis, isn’t that all that really matters?

If the economy of Mexico was half of what America’s is, would illegal immigration into America by Mexicans (the largest population of illegal immigrants in America) be that much of a burden, or relevant at all, to be a cause for concern?

Giving amnesty to all the millions of illegal Mexican immigrants currently in America is not going to strengthen the Mexican economy; is not going to create more jobs, more business, more wealth for the Mexicans who remained in Mexico; is not going to build a freer society within Mexico; is not going to make it any less likely that the millions of Mexicans living in extreme poverty in Mexico will not also dream of something better for themselves and their families, and thus dare to pursue a path to America, illegally, if necessary.

The problem has never been America, nor its determination to build a wall along the two thousand mile stretch of border with Mexico. Every sovereign country in the world knows that without a border, without some kind of demarcation line to indicate on which side of that line is our land, and which side is your land; and without a willingness to protect that line from unwarranted encroachment or trespassing - that very sovereignty would be in peril. Somehow, for some reason, at some point in American history, there evolved the idea that America should not be sovereign; that America, because of its wealth and prosperity (all built on a foundation of free markets and capitalism) should no longer be sovereign. And now this idea has been picked up by millions of non Americas, including those that are in America illegally.

Among some of the more prominent supporters of amnesty for illegal immigrants are, of course, the ACLU and the Democrat Party, but also La Raza (The Race) and MALDEF (The Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund); both organizations of which are very pro-Mexican and which devote a vast amount of time, money, personal energy and resources to the idea that America, and its borders, ought to be more open and inviting for all Mexicans. But the biggest supporter of amnesty for illegal immigrants may be a surprise. The government of Mexico itself! Well, perhaps that really wasn’t much of a surprise after-all.

It is the consorted endeavor by all these groups - dishonest as they are - and everyone else, to fulfill an end that not only does not justify the means, but is drenched in a stench of misguided, ill-contrived, fallacious lies, Amnesty is nothing short of a scam! And the ones hurt by it most are the illegal immigrants themselves, who are nothing more than pawns and tools to La Raza, MALDEF, the ACLU and the Democrat Party. The Mexican government is just happy to be rid of them; for the sad, bitter irony is that Mexicans are worth more to Mexico in America, whether they are legal or not, than they could ever be worth in Mexico, no matter how hard they toiled. The money they send back home is more money than they could ever hope to make in Mexico. It is more money than the government of Mexico is willing they should make in Mexico! And that is the crux.

The problem is not America. Neither it’s attitude towards Mexicans, or any immigrants; or any unfounded, damnable cry of bigotry or xenophobia leveled against loyal, patriotic Americans. The problem lies with Mexico itself, and its own government. A government so blind, so immoral, so ensconced in corruption it is willing to throw aside its own people, and make them the concern of another government. It is the Mexican government itself that ought to be held to task; ought to be held accountable; and ought to be held in deep contempt for bigotry against its own people.

There is wealth in Mexico. And there is an accumulation of that wealth in Mexico. Enough wealth to begin the process of transforming Mexico from a third world nation into that of an economic leader, should that wealth be properly invested. The Mexican government knows this wealth exists. They are the ones holding it hostage!

Never-mind America focusing its energy on amnesty. Our own government ought to be pressing that of Mexico to release this wealth back to its own people. This is where the solution to illegal immigration in America truly resides. For, should the Mexican government ever give up its stranglehold on the accumulated wealth of its citizenry, and open itself up to free markets, capitalism, low taxation, less regulation - everything we have here in America - the Mexican people are intelligent, capable, and without question, able bodied enough to lift themselves out of the despair and misery that has forced and compelled so many millions of them to risk their own lives searching for better fruits in another land without legal consent.

If ever Mexico should regain its independent from its own government, throw off the shackles of socialism, and embrace freedom - then shall we in America see mass deportation of illegal immigrants. But “en masse” of a different kind. For, it will involve an exodus whose participants are actually willing, and who will come out of hiding on their own. They will want to return to a country that is economically productive and fertile, where they can earn a living for themselves and their families without having to look over their shoulder, or wonder if today will be the day they are turned in; a country where they can make enough money, and keep that money, where they can raise their families, invest in their futures - and do it all legally, on their own soil, in their own sovereign country.

All hail Republicanism! Actually, the statement proposed as the title for this article is an absolute contradiction in terms. Republicanism, that is the agenda set forth by the Republican Party, and adhered to by most Republicans nationwide is very simple - less taxes, less government, more personal freedom. What is dictatorial about that?

Let’s look at what is really going on here. Certain groups of people in America simply hate Republicans, and what we stand for. Whether they go by the name Democrat, Socialist, Progressive, Liberal, Green - they are all the same type of person. They all loathe and despise Republicans because we, generally speaking, are free market, pro capitalist, anti regulation, pro individualism, pro second amendment, pro life. In other words - sane.

We, as Republicans, love wealth. We love the idea of wealth, love sharing in that wealth, love to hear about others benefiting and prospering from that wealth. Wealth creates business, creates jobs - better paying jobs; wealth is what drives our economy and has allowed America to be, and remain, the freest, most prosperous nation in the world. It is the reason we support deep cuts in taxes. We know money makes money, and we desire that everyone have the opportunity to contribute. The less constraints on the money we earn the better. Right?

Without wealth there is but one alternative. Dependency! If we don’t have enough to live on, we either suffer miserable consequences, or we relinquish the greatest right this nation has bestowed. Freedom! If we are dependent on others, namely government, we lose that element of dignity, of self worth and self respect. When we are dependent on government, it acts as a hook, and we become accustomed to it to such an extent it literally becomes a “fix”, and we do whatever we can to ensure those “fixes” keep coming. The Democrat Party is the “dealer”, and it is they, not Republicans, who desire to keep you hooked (dependent) on government. Raising taxes and increasing the amount of money spent on social programs is what is promised to keep us hooked. Of course, it is never enough to keep us going very far; but it is just enough to keep us begging for more government action.

Republicans fight savagely to ensure more person freedom, which keeps fewer people hooked on government dependence, while Democrats fight savagely to keep more people hooked on government dependence, which ensures less personal freedom. Does anyone want to explain how that makes Republicans “Dictators”?

Republicans, by in large, are pro-life. We accept that life begins at conception, which is clearly evidenced by science, and steadfastly oppose Roe vs. Wade, knowing it is bad, misguided law; and we are desirous to see it overturned, reverting the decision back to the states. Democrats, by in large, support abortion, which is defined as the termination of life within the womb. And so long as the fetus remains within the womb, even through the ninth month of pregnancy, Democrats will support a woman’s right to terminate. Either life has value, or it hasn’t. And that life is worth fighting for, whether it be in the womb, or in a coma. Republicans choose life. Democrats choose abortion. Does anyone want to explain how that makes republicans “Dictators”?

Republicans support the right to bear arms. Guns have been an integral part of the American experience from the very beginning. If it had been a stipulation that all gun owners relinquish their guns in order to be counted as Americans - the states never would have united, and England, after regrouping from its first lost against us, would have beaten us the second time around, and long before 1812.

Guns continue to be ingrained in our civilization, despite the slaughter that is committed by them on a daily basis. Understand, it is criminals, not law abiding, responsible gun owners, that commit atrocities with guns. Republicans reject any measure to restrict gun ownership by legal, law abiding, responsible Americans, while Democrats support measures to ban all guns. Such a measure has already occurred in our capital, Washington D.C. What is the murder rate there?

Democrats support banning all guns nationwide, repealing the second amendment, and confiscating every last gun in America owned by legal, law abiding, responsible Americans - thereby leaving the remaining stock of guns, having gone unchecked, safety in the hands of criminals, who by their very nature would never willingly hand them in; and who will now feel even more emboldened to inflict even great harm upon society. Unless we can believe calling, “Help, police,” is going to instill more fear than brandishing a gun?

Republicans support the right of Americans to protect themselves, their families, their property, their communities from these very criminals. Does someone want to explain how this makes Republican “Dictators”?

The hate, the bitterness, vitriol that Democrats feel toward Republicans is as pathetic as it is childish. If all Democrats have to fight us with is silly name calling and nonsensical laws, can anyone really feel comfortable, can anyone feel obliged, can anyone really feel moved and swayed to belong in such a party? And Republicanism is Dictatorship?

As the Presidential Primaries begin to wind down, and we move ever closer to election 2008, two candidates - one Democrat, one Republican - will emerge from what has indeed been a rabid wolf pack this election cycle. Each, in their own right, in their own style, will take center stage together, it is hoped in a number of strong, meaningful and deeply informative debates, to give cause why they, and not the other, is the better, more qualified, candidate to be the next President of the United States of America. The candidate that answers correctly, whether or not raising taxes helps or hurts the economy will be the candidate we want to win the election, and ascend to the office of American President. The candidate that answers incorrectly we will want to lose, and descend into the depths of eternal obscurity.

Conversely, the candidate that supports ending the Bush tax cuts and supports raising taxes will take this stand with the full understanding, knowledge and well documented evidence that raising taxes always, always, always weakens the economy, stifles job creation, discourages business growth and expansion, endangers competition - and robs us all of even more of our earnings!

And yet millions of us will vote for the latter candidate over the former! It's maddening, to say the least. The health and vitality of our economy depends on how much we are willing to reduce taxes, and the rate of taxation; and we need a President with the courage, the strength, the foresight and the willingness to stare down the opposition and demand an end to high taxation.

It is the cowardly position that says we must raise taxes, preferably (and usually, always) on the rich, because they either can afford to pay more, or because they are not paying their fair share. How pathetic! How unscrupulous. It is the rich that create jobs, not the poor. Or is that wrong? It is the rich that pay the salaries, not the poor. Or is that too wrong?

Everyone aspires to be wealthy. How many people aspire to be poor? And yet when we cast our vote for the other candidate this election, that is - the one who will raise our taxes, and infect our economy with a plague of deadly consequences, we will have cast our vote in favor of poverty for all, wealth for none. And the only ones left holding the money bags will be the ones we so unwittingly put in office to begin with; the very ones for whom, by law, are granted the power to levy taxes on us all. Ironic?